Li Hoi Shuane: Case Study Of Simon And Jane

Issue: Should the Court rule as time-barred the Plaintiff’s claims which he makes under the Massachusetts ‘Blue Sky’ securities fraud statute and as lacking as a matter of law the Plaintiff’s claim on the Defendants’ unfair trade practices?

Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)

On 03/07/16 we received a broker invoice advising of an incurred increase in the amount of $1,180,064 (1,137,500 Loss & 42,564.14) along with a billing request for $1,269,607 (1,225,000 Loss & 44,606.94 in Lae). The only other information provided was Harco’s 03/03/16 loss report stating; no meritorious appellate issues, therefore the loss was settled for $5,000,000 with a supplemental payment of $112,000 for plaintiff’s taxable cost. Based on the limited information provided, an internet search was conducted finding that the case was tried with the plaintiff receiving a $6M verdict against the insured on 12/18/15. Based on the above, an inquiry was issued to Harco requesting details regarding their strategy to litigate this loss to a verdict with an explanation as to why the taxable cost of $112,000 was being ceded to reinsurers as an expense.

Statement of Facts: James River Insurance Company issued two insurance policies to Scarsella Brothers Incorporated that provided coverage for liability related to Scarsella’s work on a WSDOT highway project. The claims against WSDOT came from a traffic accident in 2009 that occurred near Scarsella’s highway project. A suit was filed in King County Superior Court, and Scarsella was included as a defendant, WSDOT sent a letter to Scarsella with a request for defense to the suit under the insurance policies. James River attempted to initiate arbitration to the binding arbitration provisions, WSDOT objected and filed a “declaratory judgment action against

Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation law states “The liability of an employer prescribed by the last proceeding section shall be exclusive and in place of any other

An estimated 249 million private sector insurance claims will have been filed in 2011 (U.S. Department of Treasury, 2010, p. 43343). If the government sector and the market for individual coverage are included, an additional 70 and 62 million claims, respectively, were expected to be filed. Of these, 48.1 million or 12.6% will be denied. Only a small percentage of denied claims are expected to be appealed, approximately 162,300 or 0.34%, but nearly 40% of these should be successful. This essay describes the appeal process and its benefits.

The legal issue surrounding the plaintiffs’ Janvier et al. deals with negligence in the workplace resulting in harm. Negligence is a form of tort law. The purpose of tort law is to compensate victims. Typically in order to claim negligence, the plaintiff must prove four things: duty of care, standard of care, that the plaintiff suffered injury or damage, and the defendants conduct caused injury to the plaintiff. Despite this claim of negligence, according to WCB legislation, the lawsuit filed by these plaintiffs is not actionable in court. As an employer worker relationship exists, the plaintiffs are not allowed to bring legal action upon their employer for damages. The WCB legislation prevents workers from suing their employers. In

Schlossberg is strong, it does not relieve the insured of liability. Based on mock trials conducted by defense counsel, the mock jury testing, found 35% to 60% comparative negligence against the insured with the following allegations being applied; wrongful death, failure to supervise, failure to warn, product liability, breach of warranty and negligence. Multiple mock jury’s valued the case between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000. Harco’s current total incurred is $2,370,191 with paid amount of $302,789 the total outstanding reserve is $2,067,312. Our 35% share excess $1,500,000 is

This Case relates to Fortuitous happenings because the insurance company had tried make its claim stating that the Plaintiff had no coverage due to lack of the accident happening out of accident but instead happening out of his own fault. Though they were right, the Judge still found that the Plaintiff had tried to save his boat and that under a different clause still covered under the insurance policy he had with the company, is still covered.

• Eveready Australia Pty Ltd v Gillette Australia Pty Ltd OR Taco Company of Aust Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (“objective test”)

Hocker and CIC mutually entered a contract which is valid and continued to be effective with responsibility and benefit. Each party voluntarily executed the contract and committed to it. CIC has never denied the validity of the executed contract and CIC has never substantiated any failure or noncompliance on Mr. Hocker’s part. On the other side, Mr. Hocker had put all his trust in CIC, fulfilled his contractual duty, paying all premium timely and complied with all terms and condition of the policy holder. Ultimately, Mr. Hocker purchased insurance from CIC with only reason-to buy peace of mind.

Generally, an employer may be held “vicariously liable” for the negligence of an employee under certain circumstances such as; “the injury occurred while the employee was on the clock, the injury was caused by an activity the employee was hired to perform, and the employer benefited in some way from the activity the employee was performing at the time of the injury”” (findlaw.com

The plaintiff, OSHA, did a safety investigation of Centimark Corporation after an employee fell through a roof and died. OSHA claimed the working surface was not stable and Centimark was negligent in checking its stability. The defendant, Centimark Corporation, argued that the standard of checking integrity of the roof did not apply to them because that current construction project had been completed. Centimark argued they should not be liable for that standard. The court ruled against Centimark stating it was clear Centimark’s employees were exposed to a fall hazard. Centimark was required to pay 7000 in fines.

Mr. and Mrs. Lear have come to this law firm to ask for legal advice concerning the fact that their insurance company is denying coverage for Mrs. Lear’s “King Lear” novel by Shakespeare. Her novel was stolen on August 10 from the pool house. The insurance is denying coverage based on their finding that the pool house does not constitute a dwelling, and the policy is limited to items in Mr. and Mrs. Lear’s dwelling. Mr. and Mrs. Lear want to know whether or not they can challenge the insurance company’s denial of coverage for the book.

This correlates with the case study, in which Rachael offers John a position at her company and informs him that the manufacturers in Hong Kong are displeased with his company’s progress and performance level and wish to seek a contract with Rachael imports Pty Ltd. John must not allow Rachael’s unnecessary judgments and influence from deciding his future with Y Pty Ltd and not be subjected to